Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to enforce against advertising signs in car parks in his area. Even if there has been Council fault here, the matters complained of do not cause Mr X sufficient significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has:
1. failed to apply its enforcement policy in response to his reports about companies erecting unauthorised advertisements for parking services in car parks in his area;
2. failed to make site visits in response to his complaint.
2. Mr X says he knows people who have been hounded and harassed by parking companies’ practices. He says he finds their tactics disturbing and they cause him anxiety and annoyance, especially when considering the issue is country-wide.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X, online maps and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In response to Mr X’s reports about the car park signs, the Council clarified the whereabouts of those he found most concerning. Officers viewed the signs and their location online and considered information Mr X provided. They explained the Council is required to only use its enforcement powers when they consider it proportionate to do so. Officers decided the location and purpose of the signs meant that if they had been the subject of a planning application, the Council would have granted them unconditional permission. They explained that where this is the case, it would not be reasonable for them to enforce. Officers stated that while the signs may be a breach of advertising regulations, they decided they did not warrant enforcement action.
6. Even if there has been fault in the Council’s decision-making here, including in its officers’ decision not to visit the signs’ location, we will not investigate. We note Mr X says he finds the practices of car parking firms disturbing, causing him anxiety and annoyance. But the wider practices of parking companies are separate from the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action regarding the car park signs in his area. Mr X’s claimed injustice of anxiety and annoyance at some parking firms’ practices does not stem from the Council’s enforcement decision he has complained about. We recognise Mr X may experience annoyance from the continuing presence of the signs. But that is not enough significant injustice to justify an investigation. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by the matters complained of to warrant us using our resources to investigate.
7. We note Mr X also says he knows people who have been harassed by parking companies. This is a claimed impact on other people, not on Mr X, and the injustice of others is not his injustice. Furthermore, this claimed injustice also relates to the wider actions of parking firms and would not be caused directly by the Council’s enforcement decision about the signs.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the matters complained of do not cause him sufficient significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman